sparkybird
ask the bird...
So should air pollution and road safety not be improved to prevent homeowners benefiting financially?
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
The discussion was about why Lambeth Cyclists intentionally misrepresented the boundaries. The answer is becasue it is worth very serious money.
If you want to talk about policies regarding pollution and road safety, I rec 20 years of literature in which the focus has been on everyone contributing and everyone benefittng. The point of Tory #LTN's is that others pay for the gain of a minority, thus undermining 20 years of consensus.
It doesn't seem to be too far from this week's Gov wheeze of down-grading exam results for everyone expect the privileged.
If you want to talk about policies regarding pollution and road safety, I rec 20 years of literature in which the focus has been on everyone contributing and everyone benefittng. The point of Tory #LTN's is that others pay for the gain of a minority, thus undermining 20 years of consensus.
It doesn't seem to be too far from this week's Gov wheeze of down-grading exam results for everyone expect the privileged.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
The maps as far as I can see were produced as a direct response to the claim that the LTNs have been chosen to apply to areas which overwhelmingly contain owner occupier properties, and not social housing. They demonstrate that's not true. The boundary of the LTN is shown in blue, and social housing outlined in red. They show that there's social housing both inside and outside the areas. There's no "disgusting misrepresentation".
Useful of course that opponents can now call them "Tory LTNs" because the (already in progress under a non Tory mayor) plans have been accelerated by legislation put in place in response to the unprecedented covid crisis. Interestingly they see deep opposition from the traditional Tory vote. LTNs and cutting rat running were also part of the Green Party's last manifesto, so if it's true that the Greens are pointedly remaining silent on this (are they) then that's also interesting.
One argument that really doesn't make sense is that the plans are designed to enhance property values and won't benefit non owner occupiers in the neighbourhoods. They can only enhance property values if they make the overall area more attractive to live in, so why would the changes only be attractive or beneficial to those who own their homes? If we are saying it'll just make the currently rented social housing more desirable for sell-off or redevelopment then we're back in the position where we have to rule out doing anything that makes life better for the area's residents.
Useful of course that opponents can now call them "Tory LTNs" because the (already in progress under a non Tory mayor) plans have been accelerated by legislation put in place in response to the unprecedented covid crisis. Interestingly they see deep opposition from the traditional Tory vote. LTNs and cutting rat running were also part of the Green Party's last manifesto, so if it's true that the Greens are pointedly remaining silent on this (are they) then that's also interesting.
One argument that really doesn't make sense is that the plans are designed to enhance property values and won't benefit non owner occupiers in the neighbourhoods. They can only enhance property values if they make the overall area more attractive to live in, so why would the changes only be attractive or beneficial to those who own their homes? If we are saying it'll just make the currently rented social housing more desirable for sell-off or redevelopment then we're back in the position where we have to rule out doing anything that makes life better for the area's residents.
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
I think you'll find it makes enormous sense.
People who rent socilly and live in a #MagiclLTN have no finncial gain - the many £10,000s, but some will gain in convenience while others wil have loss in convenience. It's a different measurement, and becasue circs vary so socially renting opinion within the magic kingdom will vary.
Last edited:
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Having examined all that literature what are your proposals for rapidly addressing congestion, air pollution, and pedestrian and cyclist safety in London? No-one in opposition to the LTN concept seems to be able to offer a plausible better approach. No policy is perfect, but this approach seems to be the best we have available right now. It doesn't rely on excluding some areas to allow others to benefit. The ideal would be to apply it city wide, but this kind of staged introduction is what seems to be the politically and practically feasible one. In Ghent, discussed earlier in the thread, they did apply it in more of a blanket approach (all neighbourhoods within the ring road at once). They are now looking at extending it outwards.
When you say the concept relies on excluding certain neighbourhoods from the benefits, you are misrepresenting the concept.
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
Really hopeful for the extended ULEZ. Potentially, good incremental gains - FOR THE SOCIETY. Another one of those crazy policies designed by experts engaged in joined up professional thinking, rather than by one of the Chosen Few at Castle Cummings on Whitehall and rushed out for the wheeze.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I'm not saying they make financial gain. The schemes are not focussed on making financial gains for residents, even if you want to claim they are and it's a kind of conspiracy. They are focussed on making other types of gain.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Last time that was discussed here, the same people criticising the LTNs complained that the ULEZ penalises those who can't afford to replace vehicles, while those with cash can simply pay their way out of any inconvenience. And of course, it excludes those outside of the ULEZ from any benefit whatsoever, and there are concerns raised about traffic diverted around its edges through those "outsider" areas.Really hopeful for the extended ULEZ. Potentially, good incremental gains - FOR THE SOCIETY. Another one of those crazy policies designed by experts engaged in joined up professional thinking, rather than by one of the Chosen Few at Castle Cummings on Whitehall and rushed out for the wheeze.
The ULEZ (which I'm in favour of by the way) doesn't adress the issue of creating safe routes for cyclists & pedestrians. It's also painfully slow to implement, like anything that involves disrupting motorists' existing habits.
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
Nah. the Sharp Elbows can hype it 'til the cows come home but it's it's 500m long and isn't even a cycle lane. Yet somehow it's supposed to have changed hundreds of lives!!
To put it mildly, the potential peripheral gains have been thrust to the centre, while the important issues of environments injustice and the introduction of we gain/you lose into climte policy is marginalised. Extraordinary bias and dishonesty thatt is undermining the work to build consensus over decades in the UK.
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
So now you're the expert? We're lucky to have you.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Loose meat I wonder if you'll answer the question that newbie is determined to dodge. In areas where a LTN is already in place, and has been for some years, where there's a mix of private and social housing, would you advocate removing the traffic blocks, as this by your logic would make things on the whole better for any social housing residents would it not?
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
If it works for everyone and the environment, why would you stop it. The problem with LTN is - to repeat myself - the price others have to pay for some to gain. Fwiw, I think the Railton area LTN is a particularly strong example of win/lose, and that's just within Coldharbour Ward. Other LTNs may be less extreme in effect.
Why not ask me: do I want more traffic on the streets where my kids go, do I want more pollution, more noise, more danger - before you answer let me say I will gain financially by gifting you these things?
sparkybird
ask the bird...
Sorry I don't understand what you're getting at here?
And Lambeth is a Labour Council, so why the #Tory LTN? I'm confused...
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
I've found the source - census data on Datashine. Your estimates seem a bit off
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
LOL. I suspect even you don't knew the area that measures. You didn't do your graphic training with Lambeth Cyclists, per chance?
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
I think we're seeing slightly reduced traffic in the week (people working from home, fewer school runs, people shopping less frequently) but higher traffic at weekends as people with cars make family leisure trips that by car that they would have used public transport for before. Seems the same all over London - this is whole justification for the COVID transport strategy - that unless we provide real alternatives to driving by making the streets safer traffic, congestion, pollution will be worse than pre COVID. (Plus there are ongoing road works on both Brixton Road and Acre Lane)
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Your not getting the point of editor photo.
Coldharbour lane is not part the LTN. For LTN purposes its a main road for traffic. As traffic "filtering" is taking place nearby it might be that this part of CHL ( which I also live on) may have to put up with more traffic.
I really hope the Council is monitering traffic properly and will give figures of road use now Railton LTN is in place. Its effect on nearby road such as CHL.
You say this is a COVID transport strategy. So Im assuming you are now saying these are temporary.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
Really hopeful for the extended ULEZ. Potentially, good incremental gains - FOR THE SOCIETY. Another one of those crazy policies designed by experts engaged in joined up professional thinking, rather than by one of the Chosen Few at Castle Cummings on Whitehall and rushed out for the wheeze.
What have LTNs to do with Whitehall or Cummings?
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
The ULEZ is bullshit, An Aston Martin db11 or Range Rover evoque are exempt, it’s a great example of consultation doing sweet FA.Really hopeful for the extended ULEZ. Potentially, good incremental gains - FOR THE SOCIETY. Another one of those crazy policies designed by experts engaged in joined up professional thinking, rather than by one of the Chosen Few at Castle Cummings on Whitehall and rushed out for the wheeze.
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
not too focused on brands. The issue is emissions. Euro-6 complaint is the game.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
No, because there are other existing modal filters, the one on lambert road for example, do you want to take those out?
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
why would I.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Because they don’t let traffic flow through off Brixton hill. It’s an LTN.
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
I know. I cut through there to Lidl, and Clapham.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
But you can’t get onto the b221 there, can ya?. Because of a modal filter. Where are the protests about that?. Crescent lane has one as well.
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
I cycle.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
It’s an existing LTN, you would let traffic through there?.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
You are telling us that LTNs do not work for everyone. Furthermore you are telling us that they are actively harmful to some.
My question was, therefore, would you remove all existing LTNs?
Would you?
Similar threads
